Hi all,

With changes in other people's RLs, my group has dropped the 'other game' and I'm back to running my TOR!
Though it was (re-) introductory and investigative, and essentially very slow this first session, the group's attention was more on the actual game than it has been for ages (where it's been a constant battle to keep them on topic instead of digressing onto the food, the smartphones and the puerile humour). Result. Now to pick up the pace and get the rules and the action really flowing.

I'll be a lot more active on here again, and Actual Play writeups will start appearing again on my Obsidian Portal page.

I've said before that one of the things I didn't do brilliantly during The Marsh Bell was the al of sufficient Advancement Points. I can't find Francesco's advice on them -- especially the progression of difficulty for the first, second and third diamonds -- that I know I read somewhere in the intervening months.

• Can anyone point me in the right direction?

The plot revolves around an act of discovered morgûl sorcery on the part of the villains of the last adventure -- who'd previous been assumed to be mundane. They're working for a Sorcerer who (still) wants something from a dwarven vault in the Lonely Mountain...

• Has anyone already worked up any specific examples of the Adversary special ability Dreadful Spells, or similar?

I'm also contemplating freeing up the Called Shot options.

• I'm thinking of letting people try the 'other' Called Shot options at a cost of raising the TN by 2. So a sword can Pierce, an axe can try to beat the weapon out of a target's grasp (Disarm), etc. They'll still have good cause to favour the Called Shot their weapon is best at, but I hope things will feel a little less formulaic or prescriptive.
  
• There are currently the possibilities of Disarming a foe, or of smashing their shield...
  Does anyone else think smashing a weapon is valid -- at least against hafted/shafted weapons?

Cheers!
--Os.

I think weapon hafts could be broken realistically, however I think the game effect will be a little too close to disarm but more final wouldn't it? I planned to use it as a narrative possibility for disarm but as stated in another post most players don't seem to do the called shots very much. My group(s) have been no exception so far... but I'm planning on making them a little more attractive

I don't think there is anything wrong with your idea to open up the possibilities somewhat either. Maybe it will encourage more versatility in creative combat narratives?

As far as gaining advancement points I believe they say one thing in the players book and another in the LM book. Based on my original reading of the player book I thought you got one when you succeeded in a successful common skill roll for the 1st dot, and then only on a great success for the 2nd, and then only on an extraordinary success for the third. A second reading indicated that this was just an idea and not a fast and hard rule. The LM book gave me the impression that awarding these should be based on how memorable the feat and result was.... with similarly increasing thresholds of remarkableness to get the higher dots filled. and that a player can get a dot filled even for a failed roll. I can't quote it or give you page numbers though.

I think dreadful spells is supposed to be very open ended. The only dreadful spell I used so far wasn't even done in front of the heroes. It was used by a Goblin chief who had a magical door that only opens to a password. I'll use dreadful whenever i want an important evil creature to be able to do something unusual.

I'll throw out some ideas most wil have limited if any reference to established stuff from middle earth but... why not:

i think the example of the spider spell in the LM book is a pretty classic model of something that a minion of the dark would use... exerting power over the wills of others... spells that cause targets to flee in terror or even obey suggestions (like King Theoden's submission to Grima) might be ideas on a similar line of thought. Maybe a dreadful spell to trigger extreme rage in the subject, which might be used nefariously. Even a dreadful spell to make someone like you or fall in love with you might be possible! Magic used by fell and fair alike has been used to cause sleepiness and forgetfulness as well in middle earth....

Another idea could be illusions, not unlike the elf lights, or delusions making one target think that something is true... one could mimic the one rings ability to allow someone to disappear... or nerf it a bit to make the user become less visible.... to fade... so it's less powerful...

another psychological warfare idea that is a bit more overt could be to cause the target to writhe helpless in pain if they fail their wisdom roll.... similar game effect to the paralysis (they can't act) but a different narrative, and a very different sensation... instead of fear, agony....

I'd avoid spells that make the ground shake or lightning bolts and fireballs at the sorcerer's whim... killing seems to be done with weapons for the most part in middle earth, with the possible exception of the truly powerful beings who could make volcanoes erupt and mountains rise and fall into the sea.... your typical sorcerer though would have subtle spells in my opinion with limited overt effects.

Oh their might be a dreadful spell to make someone sick though.. slowly over time.... i dunno... Just throwing ideas at you! I wonder if there could be a dreadful spell to make a place hotter or colder? or not...

Maybe a dreadful spell to make undead, or to speak to the spirits of the dead, or evil spirits.... to gain knowledge... ???

I'd base the TNs on the power of the sorcerer casting the spells to some extent. i wouldn't throw tons in.

I've never been in favour of "destroy weapon" for a few reasons, but especially in TOR, the disarm option works well enough for me as a "you must resort to your secondary weapon" consequence.

I've been considering a "trip opponent" called shot. Actually, I've been considering "pierce" as the main effect of a called shot, with an alternate effect depending on weapon (sword=disarm, axe=smash, spear=trip)

IRT: Advancement Points.

There is no Hard rule in any of the books. But there is discussion and recommendations in both.

In theory:

a) the player calls for an Advancement Point when he thinks that any of the following is true:

- He has succeeded in something significant and important to the story,
- When he has completed a task in some extraordinary and epic way,
- When he has a Trait to back up his actions.

b) the LM should then consider the players claim and require successively more and more depending on what AP is requested:

- If it's the first AP requested (for that Group of skills) only one of the above a)'s need to be true (i.e. it should be easily awarded), but if it's the 2nd or 3rd it should require more and more.

As mentioned there is no detailed hard-fast rule for this so it's an LM call really.

Also REMEMBER! APs are pooled together when spending them on Raising Skills!!! I tend to forget this every time I think about these rules. You'd think that the APs you get in one Skill Group can only be "spent" raising skills from that group. But that is NOT so. It only governs how you accumulate points. Not how you spend them.

/wolf

This?

http://cubicle7.clicdev.com/f/index.php?tr...topic=3475&st=0


Also this, and you should read the Comments as well.

http://cohorsarcana.blogspot.it/2012/08/th...ml#comment-form

Thankyou, Evening! That was the discussion I was looking for. And whilst I'd found and skimmed through the blog page last night, the emphasis on TN Difficulties distracted me from the fact that there was a lot of AP-award discussion in the Comments on Francesco's blog too.

Thanks for the responses on Called Shots and Dreadful Spells too, guys.

I agree that 'Destroy Weapon' is like, but more powerful than, 'Disarm' (depending on whether the LM lets people retrieve their disarmed weapons). I'm inclined to let the Player-heroes use it with the LM's approval -- as I'd struggle to crystallise rules for when it should and shouldn't be possible.

In particular, thank you Cynan for this. I do like the spider example in the LM's book, but wanted to save that for future spider conflicts.

This gets me back into the swing of things...
As the Sorcerer in question is gorcrow-themed (to reprise a 'Crowmage' I once, all-too-briefly, did in a '90s MERP game), I think oppressing the mind of the victim to the point of inflicting hysterical blindness will work nicely. Taking away the power of sight: selectively preventing them from being able to see him, or even inflicting full-blown blindness for a time, has nice resonances with crows' pecking-out of eyes...

Cheers!
--Os.

I really like your idea... particularly the take on selectively effecting sight so the target can't see him... very nasty... yet almost subtle... what a dreadfull spell!

Thanks for your ideas Cynan.
I am finally reaching the end of the LM book and I find the lack of a quantifiable spell list disappointing.